Pulling the Plug on Healthcare Reform

by Jon N. Hall6/16/17
At some of the raucous town hall meetings this year, indignant constituents would tell their representatives that if it weren’t for Obamacare they’d be dead. Actually, if it weren’t for modern medicine they’d be dead; Obamacare is merely a payment system, (and a rather rickety one). The Left and their “useful idiots” at the town halls seem to be throwing up death itself as though it were some unthinkable tragedy, as though it should never happen. And if death does happen, it’s somebody else’s fault, probably a Republican.

Is it in the national interest for government to keep all of us alive for as long as they can, to insure that each and every one of us gets to take as many breaths as is physiologically possible? Few of us live for as long as we could because few of us live the clean, prudent lives that lead to max longevity. So I can’t get exercised if some are “cheated” of a day or two of life, especially since that day or two is so exorbitantly expensive. Much of the expense of healthcare is run up in our last days on Earth, when our prospects are already pretty much dead.

If modern medicine found a cure for death, but it was so monstrously expensive that few could afford it, Democrats would be grabbing their pitchforks and caterwauling that the rich are getting to live forever while the poor are being allowed to die. Democrats would insist that the eternal life afforded by modern medicine is a “right” and that the federal government should provide it for everybody, regardless of cost.

Some of the rich already store their heads in cryogenic freezers for future resuscitation when science comes up with cures. Is it not monstrous that this isn’t included in Obamacare’s list of “essential health benefits”? By not insuring that all Americans get their own cryonic vaults to preserve their remains for eventual revivification, Republicans are “literally” killing people. (If that sounds over-the-top, then you haven’t paid any attention to the reaction to President Trump’s pulling out of the Paris climate accords.)

Much of the cost of modern medicine in America is incurred in treating a very small fraction of us. About 5 percent of Medicaid users account for half of that system’s payouts, according to the GAO. The same numbers apply to the nation as a whole. Now this is just anecdotal, but I recently heard that an acquaintance of mine, a diabetic, had gone into a coma, had two major-organ transplants, and was still in a coma. If doctors are using such patients just to see how long they can extend their lives, should insurance companies have to pay for it?

Although some might think it inhuman, one might ask: why are we trying to keep some of these patients going? Should the decisions for pulling the plug on patients in persistent vegetative states who are being kept alive by machines be made by their loved ones or by those footing the bill? Consider the Terri Schiavo case. Taxpayers and insurers shouldn’t be forced to pay for such “healthcare.” After the brain has died, when all hope is lost, pull the plug and let Nature do her damnedest. And for those of you who aren’t (yet) vegetables: when Mr. Death smiles on you, just smile back; what’s the worst that could happen? You have no “right” to live forever, so embrace the natural order of things.

The Left has got masses of Americans thinking that they should have the same healthcare as rich folks have and that they shouldn’t have to pay for it. But if we have two types of patients, those who pay and those who don’t, perhaps we should have a two-tiered system, with separate hospitals and doctors.

Recently, President Trump praised the Australian healthcare system. But lefties who delight in what they think was a concession might want to look a little deeper into healthcare Down Under. In “Was Trump right in praising the Australian healthcare system?” on May 6, Australian psychologist Dr. John Ray summed up Australia’s two-tiered system thus: “our private hospitals are as good as our public hospitals are bad.” On May 11 at American Thinker, Dr. Brian Joondeph also took a sober look at the Australian healthcare system. At the website for AIHW, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, we can read more about that nation’s public and private hospitals. It seems that in Australia, if you want the best you pay for the best. But in America, separate but unequal goes against our belief that the best should be free and that someone else should pay for it.

It looks as though there will probably be a consensus position among Democrats running in 2020 in support of a single-payer system. […] Could it be that Republicans are on the brink of defending Obamacare as the only practical alternative to the Democrats’ march toward socialized medicine?

So, the party that gave us Obamacare, which seems to be in a “death spiral,” is the same party that presumes to give us Obamacare’s replacement. It makes one think that Obamacare was deliberately designed to fail, because what the Democrats are offering up now is what they wanted all along: socialized medicine. Nonetheless, many voters will buy into the Democrats’ demagoguery. (Read my little idea for universal healthcare that is not single-payer.)

If the majority of Americans now agrees that everyone should have formal healthcare coverage, complete with an insurance card so that anyone can waltz into any doctor’s office for treatment, then they also need to agree on something else: how to pay for it. For Democrats, the solution to that problem is simple and it’s always the same: tax the rich and go further into debt. For Republicans, that’s not good enough, (one would hope).

Few in America are denied medical treatment. There may be a few wino hobos sprawled out underneath train trestles taking repeated slugs of Thunderbird who can’t find their way to the nearest ER to get that painful boil lanced, but most folks get treated whether they have an insurance card or not. In America, even illegal aliens get medical care. How else would illegals get U.S. citizenship for their newborns? (By the way, where are we on reversing that policy, Mr. President?)

Some think that the warring factions within the GOP are irreconcilable, and that nothing will come from the Obamacare repeal and replace efforts. But before they pull the plug on healthcare reform, Republicans should all agree to do at least one thing even if that’s all they do: scrap the mandates. And regardless of what else is in the GOP’s bill, it should state that the federal government cannot command Americans to buy things, even health insurance. Let the Democrats just try and reverse that.

9 Responses to Pulling the Plug on Healthcare Reform

On Wednesday 27 January 1971, I was in a bar in Danang. A crazed VC attacked my friend and I with a knife. My friend shot him three times with his 1911, but his momentum carried him close enough to me that I caught the knife in my thigh. Two inches deeper and I would have bled out, two inches higher and I could sing in the boys choir for life.

Since that day I have lived every day as if it were going to be my last. When the time comes, and the actuary says sooner than later. I plan to die on my feet. Dylan Thomas is right.

“Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

I will not be made an invalid by the medical establishment. I know full well that may shorten my life, but I will have lived every day since that day in a bar in Vietnam.

I chilling story, Steve. And there’s something to be said for not reducing oneself to a complete dependent, Jell-o-like ward of the nanny state. And I’m sure if your Brother in Arms had hugged the VC, things would have turned out alright.

My own body is being progressively enfeebled, and I just hope I manage to die before becoming completely helpless. Old age has hit me hard; Elizabeth is 12 years older, but stable in her own decline. We’ve given up on moving out of our hotel room because I doubt we’re capable of handling such a move anymore.

It looks as though there will probably be a consensus position among Democrats running in 2020 in support of a single-payer system. […] Could it be that Republicans are on the brink of defending Obamacare as the only practical alternative to the Democrats’ march toward socialized medicine?

No, I didn’t read Roger’s short article, but perhaps later, Jon. The “reform” offered by Ryan/Trump was basically the complete entrenchment of the idea of socialized medicine, particularly the completely free-market-killing unsustainable idea of covering “preexisting conditions.”

I have to laugh my ass off every time I see this commercial on TV for a company selling a car repair service (paid for like insurance). And every commercial ends by telling the sick, entitlement-minded consumer something like “Remember…you have to have this service before you have a problem.”

I don’t blame them one bit for needing this disclaimer front-and-center. I’m sure the tattooed masses were sitting at home thinking, “Great. As soon as the engine blows entirely, I’m going to sign up.”

If you caught a note of haughty disdain in my voice, you are right. The GOP has consolidated Obamacare by its supposed fixing of it. And Trump is no help because he now calls it “mean.” What a jerk. What a disgrace to this nation, the same office once filled by Washington.

But I completely agree with that quote from Ed Rogers. We are headed toward single-payer and nothing can stop it. The only question is whether or not the Left would then move on to nationalize the car companies under the guise of safety. And then the airlines. Etc. Once you accept the premise that government can and thus ought to improve any major facet of American life, there no longer exists a principled way to say no. We’re then simply arguing the details.

In regards to the GOP (not including those rare exceptions who are all but drowned out by the rest), they are simply arguing the details of socialized medicine. They in no way oppose it.

A lot of them are. But there probably really are some genuinely angry sorts — though they’re probably also likelier to want to hear what their target has to sqy. And plenty of non-angry ones show up as well. It’s easy to forget that the leftist activists aren’t numerous, though very noisy and often violent.

Mankind is reduced to a mere parasite via socialism. Perhaps a man who views himself as a random element of the universe can have no higher ambition.

And there are many clever ways to rationalize taking other people’s money (from “the rich,” or otherwise, for Social Security does not take only from “the rich”). Not just liberals do this.

Socialism is not so much a bad financial scheme but a terrible moral one. And for all the talk of how there is an increasing divide (monetarily or otherwise) between “the rich” and “the poor,” who is to blame? If I were rich I would see the writing on the wall. I would try my best to insulate myself from the gathering rabble. After all, “the rich” in most cases have done something productive and useful to earn their money while “the poor” continue to reduce themselves to a parasitic rabble.

So the divide can’t help but increase as people who do not act like parasites, nor view themselves as helpless, do what they must in a society full of people who try to do as little as they can. And to keep the rabble from eating them, “the rich” will throw out the various platitudes of PC culture. But at the end of the day, they know that ravenous quest of the entitlement-minded to take from them what they have not earned. Those who can afford to will buy their way out of the corrupt and degenerate straightjacket that “the poor” have built for themselves. They will be able to afford better health care while the rest of us have our pound of flesh…and long waits for what was once routine surgery.

This is why many rich elites don’t mind all these harmful policies. One way or another, they expect to escape the consequences. AA friend of mine once noted that you can’t soak the rich because they have umbrellas. But today they’re more concerned with making sure they aren’t affected by the policies they support, not the taxes needed to pay for them.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.